Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1701 | control, N = 851 | treatment, N = 851 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 168 | 50.64 ± 12.49 (25 - 74) | 50.80 ± 12.53 (25 - 74) | 50.48 ± 12.52 (28 - 73) | 0.867 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 170 | 0.707 | |||
f | 134 (79%) | 66 (78%) | 68 (80%) | ||
m | 36 (21%) | 19 (22%) | 17 (20%) | ||
occupation | 170 | 0.906 | |||
day_training | 4 (2.4%) | 2 (2.4%) | 2 (2.4%) | ||
full_time | 21 (12%) | 11 (13%) | 10 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 18 (11%) | 8 (9.4%) | 10 (12%) | ||
other | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 32 (19%) | 16 (19%) | 16 (19%) | ||
retired | 41 (24%) | 20 (24%) | 21 (25%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.1%) | 4 (4.7%) | 3 (3.5%) | ||
student | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.4%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.2%) | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
unemploy | 41 (24%) | 23 (27%) | 18 (21%) | ||
marital | 170 | 0.977 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
divore | 19 (11%) | 11 (13%) | 8 (9.4%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.4%) | 2 (2.4%) | 2 (2.4%) | ||
married | 51 (30%) | 25 (29%) | 26 (31%) | ||
none | 82 (48%) | 40 (47%) | 42 (49%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.8%) | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
widow | 10 (5.9%) | 5 (5.9%) | 5 (5.9%) | ||
edu | 170 | 0.238 | |||
bachelor | 39 (23%) | 15 (18%) | 24 (28%) | ||
diploma | 31 (18%) | 21 (25%) | 10 (12%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.9%) | 4 (4.7%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (8.8%) | 8 (9.4%) | 7 (8.2%) | ||
primary | 12 (7.1%) | 5 (5.9%) | 7 (8.2%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 18 (11%) | 10 (12%) | 8 (9.4%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 42 (25%) | 19 (22%) | 23 (27%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 8 (4.7%) | 3 (3.5%) | 5 (5.9%) | ||
fam_income | 170 | 0.723 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (3.5%) | 2 (2.4%) | 4 (4.7%) | ||
12001_14000 | 10 (5.9%) | 4 (4.7%) | 6 (7.1%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (4.7%) | 3 (3.5%) | 5 (5.9%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.4%) | 2 (2.4%) | 2 (2.4%) | ||
18001_20000 | 8 (4.7%) | 6 (7.1%) | 2 (2.4%) | ||
20001_above | 32 (19%) | 19 (22%) | 13 (15%) | ||
2001_4000 | 23 (14%) | 13 (15%) | 10 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 19 (11%) | 7 (8.2%) | 12 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 14 (8.2%) | 8 (9.4%) | 6 (7.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 14 (8.2%) | 7 (8.2%) | 7 (8.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 32 (19%) | 14 (16%) | 18 (21%) | ||
medication | 170 | 152 (89%) | 76 (89%) | 76 (89%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 167 | 15.42 ± 10.44 (0 - 56) | 15.80 ± 11.36 (0 - 56) | 15.02 ± 9.46 (0 - 35) | 0.629 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 165 | 35.40 ± 13.54 (10 - 65) | 34.86 ± 12.22 (10 - 61) | 35.94 ± 14.82 (14 - 65) | 0.610 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1701 | control, N = 851 | treatment, N = 851 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 170 | 3.11 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.15 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 0.657 |
recovery_stage_b | 170 | 17.89 ± 2.80 (8 - 24) | 17.94 ± 2.90 (8 - 24) | 17.84 ± 2.72 (9 - 24) | 0.806 |
ras_confidence | 170 | 29.81 ± 5.27 (14 - 45) | 29.34 ± 5.18 (14 - 40) | 30.28 ± 5.35 (18 - 45) | 0.246 |
ras_willingness | 170 | 11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.72 ± 2.03 (5 - 15) | 11.87 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 0.624 |
ras_goal | 170 | 17.41 ± 3.14 (7 - 25) | 17.13 ± 3.03 (7 - 24) | 17.69 ± 3.25 (11 - 25) | 0.243 |
ras_reliance | 170 | 13.31 ± 2.91 (5 - 20) | 13.08 ± 2.83 (5 - 18) | 13.54 ± 2.98 (7 - 20) | 0.305 |
ras_domination | 170 | 9.78 ± 2.44 (3 - 15) | 9.94 ± 2.51 (3 - 15) | 9.62 ± 2.38 (3 - 15) | 0.398 |
symptom | 170 | 29.81 ± 9.07 (14 - 56) | 29.96 ± 9.46 (14 - 55) | 29.65 ± 8.72 (15 - 56) | 0.820 |
slof_work | 170 | 22.39 ± 4.79 (10 - 30) | 22.60 ± 4.39 (12 - 30) | 22.19 ± 5.17 (10 - 30) | 0.576 |
slof_relationship | 170 | 25.32 ± 5.92 (9 - 35) | 24.93 ± 5.93 (9 - 35) | 25.72 ± 5.92 (11 - 35) | 0.387 |
satisfaction | 170 | 20.48 ± 7.14 (5 - 35) | 19.64 ± 6.97 (5 - 33) | 21.32 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 0.125 |
mhc_emotional | 170 | 10.83 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.54 ± 3.70 (3 - 17) | 11.12 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 0.318 |
mhc_social | 170 | 15.05 ± 5.58 (5 - 30) | 14.84 ± 5.58 (5 - 30) | 15.27 ± 5.61 (5 - 29) | 0.613 |
mhc_psychological | 170 | 21.78 ± 6.42 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.23 (7 - 36) | 22.01 ± 6.63 (6 - 36) | 0.643 |
resilisnce | 170 | 16.39 ± 4.71 (6 - 30) | 15.79 ± 4.27 (6 - 24) | 17.00 ± 5.07 (6 - 30) | 0.094 |
social_provision | 170 | 13.50 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 13.11 ± 2.69 (5 - 20) | 13.89 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 0.073 |
els_value_living | 170 | 16.97 ± 3.17 (5 - 25) | 16.64 ± 3.05 (6 - 22) | 17.31 ± 3.27 (5 - 25) | 0.169 |
els_life_fulfill | 170 | 12.77 ± 3.36 (4 - 20) | 12.26 ± 3.33 (5 - 19) | 13.28 ± 3.34 (4 - 20) | 0.047 |
els | 170 | 29.74 ± 5.98 (9 - 45) | 28.89 ± 5.79 (11 - 39) | 30.59 ± 6.08 (9 - 45) | 0.064 |
social_connect | 170 | 26.54 ± 9.31 (8 - 48) | 26.94 ± 8.91 (8 - 48) | 26.13 ± 9.74 (8 - 48) | 0.571 |
shs_agency | 170 | 14.34 ± 5.13 (3 - 24) | 13.74 ± 4.80 (3 - 21) | 14.93 ± 5.41 (3 - 24) | 0.132 |
shs_pathway | 170 | 15.98 ± 4.21 (3 - 24) | 15.40 ± 4.20 (3 - 24) | 16.55 ± 4.16 (4 - 24) | 0.074 |
shs | 170 | 30.31 ± 8.95 (6 - 48) | 29.14 ± 8.63 (6 - 45) | 31.48 ± 9.15 (7 - 48) | 0.088 |
esteem | 170 | 12.62 ± 1.58 (9 - 20) | 12.61 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.62 ± 1.56 (10 - 20) | 0.962 |
mlq_search | 170 | 14.84 ± 3.60 (3 - 21) | 14.45 ± 3.60 (4 - 21) | 15.24 ± 3.57 (3 - 21) | 0.154 |
mlq_presence | 170 | 13.37 ± 4.37 (3 - 21) | 13.11 ± 4.11 (3 - 21) | 13.64 ± 4.62 (3 - 21) | 0.431 |
mlq | 170 | 28.21 ± 7.11 (6 - 42) | 27.55 ± 6.74 (7 - 40) | 28.87 ± 7.43 (6 - 42) | 0.228 |
empower | 170 | 19.21 ± 4.33 (6 - 30) | 18.73 ± 4.19 (9 - 30) | 19.69 ± 4.43 (6 - 30) | 0.147 |
ismi_resistance | 170 | 14.44 ± 2.61 (5 - 20) | 14.44 ± 2.35 (6 - 20) | 14.45 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 0.977 |
ismi_discrimation | 170 | 11.63 ± 3.07 (5 - 20) | 11.80 ± 2.91 (5 - 20) | 11.46 ± 3.24 (5 - 20) | 0.471 |
sss_affective | 170 | 10.15 ± 3.62 (3 - 18) | 10.09 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 10.20 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.850 |
sss_behavior | 170 | 9.85 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 9.95 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 9.74 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.715 |
sss_cognitive | 170 | 8.40 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 8.32 ± 3.61 (3 - 18) | 8.48 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 0.774 |
sss | 170 | 28.39 ± 10.34 (9 - 54) | 28.36 ± 10.17 (9 - 54) | 28.42 ± 10.57 (9 - 54) | 0.971 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.15 | 0.129 | 2.90, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.082 | 0.182 | -0.439, 0.274 | 0.651 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.166 | 0.195 | -0.215, 0.548 | 0.395 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.351 | 0.283 | -0.203, 0.906 | 0.217 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.310 | 17.3, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.106 | 0.439 | -0.966, 0.754 | 0.809 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.228 | 0.420 | -1.05, 0.596 | 0.589 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.827 | 0.612 | -0.373, 2.03 | 0.180 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.568 | 28.2, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.941 | 0.804 | -0.634, 2.52 | 0.243 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.29 | 0.583 | 0.146, 2.43 | 0.030 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.498 | 0.850 | -1.17, 2.16 | 0.559 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.219 | 11.3, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.153 | 0.310 | -0.455, 0.761 | 0.623 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.139 | 0.242 | -0.613, 0.335 | 0.567 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.405 | 0.353 | -0.287, 1.10 | 0.255 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.1 | 0.344 | 16.5, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.565 | 0.486 | -0.388, 1.52 | 0.247 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.305 | 0.412 | -0.503, 1.11 | 0.461 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.456 | 0.600 | -0.721, 1.63 | 0.450 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.316 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.459 | 0.447 | -0.416, 1.33 | 0.305 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.412 | 0.353 | -0.281, 1.10 | 0.247 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.427 | 0.515 | -0.583, 1.44 | 0.410 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.94 | 0.258 | 9.43, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.318 | 0.365 | -1.03, 0.399 | 0.386 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.103 | 0.329 | -0.747, 0.542 | 0.756 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.19 | 0.479 | 0.248, 2.13 | 0.015 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.0 | 0.981 | 28.0, 31.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.318 | 1.387 | -3.04, 2.40 | 0.819 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.24 | 0.868 | -2.94, 0.462 | 0.157 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.463 | 1.267 | -2.95, 2.02 | 0.716 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.6 | 0.518 | 21.6, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.412 | 0.733 | -1.85, 1.02 | 0.575 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.119 | 0.542 | -1.18, 0.943 | 0.827 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.449 | 0.791 | -1.10, 2.00 | 0.571 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.9 | 0.635 | 23.7, 26.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.788 | 0.899 | -0.973, 2.55 | 0.381 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.442 | 0.678 | -1.77, 0.886 | 0.516 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.682 | 0.989 | -1.26, 2.62 | 0.492 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.6 | 0.775 | 18.1, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.68 | 1.096 | -0.466, 3.83 | 0.127 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.810 | 0.764 | -0.687, 2.31 | 0.292 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.646 | 1.115 | -1.54, 2.83 | 0.564 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.404 | 9.75, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.576 | 0.571 | -0.542, 1.70 | 0.314 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.482 | 0.394 | -0.291, 1.25 | 0.225 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.334 | 0.575 | -1.46, 0.793 | 0.563 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.626 | 13.6, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.435 | 0.885 | -1.30, 2.17 | 0.623 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.840 | 0.683 | -0.498, 2.18 | 0.222 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.099 | 0.996 | -2.05, 1.85 | 0.921 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.711 | 20.2, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.459 | 1.006 | -1.51, 2.43 | 0.649 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 0.769 | -0.388, 2.63 | 0.149 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.240 | 1.122 | -2.44, 1.96 | 0.831 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 15.8 | 0.497 | 14.8, 16.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.21 | 0.703 | -0.166, 2.59 | 0.086 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.790 | 0.564 | -0.315, 1.90 | 0.165 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.06 | 0.822 | -0.549, 2.67 | 0.199 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.309 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.788 | 0.437 | -0.069, 1.65 | 0.073 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.450 | 0.355 | -1.15, 0.246 | 0.208 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.725 | 0.518 | -0.290, 1.74 | 0.165 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.346 | 16.0, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.671 | 0.490 | -0.289, 1.63 | 0.172 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.311 | 0.373 | -0.420, 1.04 | 0.406 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.197 | 0.544 | -0.870, 1.26 | 0.719 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.356 | 11.6, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.02 | 0.503 | 0.038, 2.01 | 0.043 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.523 | 0.342 | -0.147, 1.19 | 0.130 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.144 | 0.499 | -1.12, 0.834 | 0.774 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 0.646 | 27.6, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.69 | 0.913 | -0.096, 3.48 | 0.065 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.858 | 0.593 | -0.305, 2.02 | 0.152 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.044 | 0.866 | -1.74, 1.65 | 0.960 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 1.018 | 24.9, 28.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.812 | 1.439 | -3.63, 2.01 | 0.573 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.175 | 0.963 | -2.06, 1.71 | 0.856 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.59 | 1.406 | -5.34, 0.169 | 0.069 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.550 | 12.7, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.19 | 0.778 | -0.336, 2.71 | 0.128 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.407 | 0.540 | -0.652, 1.46 | 0.454 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.430 | 0.788 | -1.11, 1.97 | 0.587 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.443 | 14.5, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.15 | 0.627 | -0.075, 2.38 | 0.067 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.727 | 0.445 | -0.145, 1.60 | 0.106 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.440 | 0.650 | -1.71, 0.833 | 0.500 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.1 | 0.948 | 27.3, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.34 | 1.340 | -0.286, 4.97 | 0.082 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.13 | 0.916 | -0.667, 2.92 | 0.222 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.025 | 1.337 | -2.64, 2.59 | 0.985 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.162 | 12.3, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.012 | 0.229 | -0.436, 0.460 | 0.959 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.059 | 0.257 | -0.563, 0.444 | 0.818 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.152 | 0.373 | -0.579, 0.884 | 0.684 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.385 | 13.7, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.788 | 0.545 | -0.279, 1.86 | 0.149 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.773 | 0.454 | -0.117, 1.66 | 0.092 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.860 | 0.662 | -2.16, 0.437 | 0.197 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.467 | 12.2, 14.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.529 | 0.661 | -0.766, 1.83 | 0.424 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.689 | 0.492 | -0.276, 1.65 | 0.165 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.136 | 0.718 | -1.54, 1.27 | 0.850 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 0.767 | 26.0, 29.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.32 | 1.085 | -0.808, 3.44 | 0.226 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.45 | 0.825 | -0.171, 3.06 | 0.083 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.963 | 1.203 | -3.32, 1.40 | 0.426 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.7 | 0.465 | 17.8, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.965 | 0.657 | -0.323, 2.25 | 0.144 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.899 | 0.468 | -0.018, 1.82 | 0.058 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.07 | 0.682 | -2.41, 0.263 | 0.119 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.276 | 13.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.012 | 0.390 | -0.754, 0.777 | 0.976 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.040 | 0.349 | -0.644, 0.724 | 0.909 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.646 | 0.508 | -0.351, 1.64 | 0.207 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.340 | 11.1, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.341 | 0.481 | -1.28, 0.602 | 0.479 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.062 | 0.439 | -0.922, 0.797 | 0.887 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.567 | 0.639 | -1.82, 0.685 | 0.377 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.393 | 9.32, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.106 | 0.556 | -0.984, 1.20 | 0.849 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.081 | 0.393 | -0.852, 0.690 | 0.836 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.09 | 0.574 | -2.21, 0.038 | 0.061 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.406 | 9.16, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.212 | 0.574 | -1.34, 0.913 | 0.713 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.287 | 0.400 | -1.07, 0.497 | 0.475 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.413 | 0.584 | -1.56, 0.731 | 0.481 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.32 | 0.398 | 7.54, 9.10 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.165 | 0.563 | -0.939, 1.27 | 0.770 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.015 | 0.435 | -0.868, 0.837 | 0.972 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.980 | 0.634 | -2.22, 0.264 | 0.126 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.4 | 1.116 | 26.2, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.059 | 1.578 | -3.03, 3.15 | 0.970 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.443 | 1.025 | -2.45, 1.57 | 0.667 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.26 | 1.497 | -5.20, 0.671 | 0.134 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.15 (95% CI [2.90, 3.41], t(241) = 24.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.27], t(241) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.55], t(241) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.91], t(241) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.94 (95% CI [17.33, 18.55], t(241) = 57.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.75], t(241) = -0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.60], t(241) = -0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.03], t(241) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.34 (95% CI [28.23, 30.45], t(241) = 51.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.52], t(241) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [0.15, 2.43], t(241) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.17, 2.16], t(241) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.72 (95% CI [11.29, 12.15], t(241) = 53.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.76], t(241) = 0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.34], t(241) = -0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.10], t(241) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.13 (95% CI [16.46, 17.80], t(241) = 49.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.52], t(241) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.11], t(241) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.63], t(241) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.46, 13.70], t(241) = 41.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.33], t(241) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.10], t(241) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.44], t(241) = 0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.94 (95% CI [9.43, 10.45], t(241) = 38.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.40], t(241) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.54], t(241) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [0.25, 2.13], t(241) = 2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.11, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.96 (95% CI [28.04, 31.89], t(241) = 30.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-3.04, 2.40], t(241) = -0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-2.94, 0.46], t(241) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.02], t(241) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.60 (95% CI [21.58, 23.62], t(241) = 43.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.02], t(241) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.94], t(241) = -0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.00], t(241) = 0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.93 (95% CI [23.68, 26.17], t(241) = 39.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.97, 2.55], t(241) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.77, 0.89], t(241) = -0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.62], t(241) = 0.69, p = 0.491; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.64 (95% CI [18.12, 21.15], t(241) = 25.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [-0.47, 3.83], t(241) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.31], t(241) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.54, 2.83], t(241) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.54 (95% CI [9.75, 11.33], t(241) = 26.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.70], t(241) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.25], t(241) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.79], t(241) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.61, 16.06], t(241) = 23.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.17], t(241) = 0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.18], t(241) = 1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.85], t(241) = -0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.16, 22.95], t(241) = 30.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.43], t(241) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.63], t(241) = 1.46, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-2.44, 1.96], t(241) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.79 (95% CI [14.81, 16.76], t(241) = 31.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-0.17, 2.59], t(241) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.90], t(241) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.67], t(241) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.50, 13.71], t(241) = 42.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.65], t(241) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.25], t(241) = -1.27, p = 0.205; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.74], t(241) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.64 (95% CI [15.96, 17.31], t(241) = 48.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.63], t(241) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.04], t(241) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.26], t(241) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.56, 12.96], t(241) = 34.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.04, 2.01], t(241) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [0.01, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.19], t(241) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.83], t(241) = -0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.89 (95% CI [27.63, 30.16], t(241) = 44.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [-0.10, 3.48], t(241) = 1.86, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.02], t(241) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.65], t(241) = -0.05, p = 0.960; Std. beta = -7.34e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.94 (95% CI [24.95, 28.94], t(241) = 26.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-3.63, 2.01], t(241) = -0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.71], t(241) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.59, 95% CI [-5.34, 0.17], t(241) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.66, 14.82], t(241) = 24.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.71], t(241) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.46], t(241) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.97], t(241) = 0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.40 (95% CI [14.53, 16.27], t(241) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 2.38], t(241) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.60], t(241) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.83], t(241) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.14 (95% CI [27.28, 31.00], t(241) = 30.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-0.29, 4.97], t(241) = 1.75, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.92], t(241) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-2.64, 2.59], t(241) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -2.86e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.24) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.69e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.61 (95% CI [12.29, 12.93], t(241) = 78.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.46], t(241) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 7.96e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.44], t(241) = -0.23, p = 0.817; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.88], t(241) = 0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.45 (95% CI [13.69, 15.20], t(241) = 37.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.86], t(241) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.66], t(241) = 1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.44], t(241) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.19, 14.02], t(241) = 28.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.83], t(241) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.65], t(241) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.27], t(241) = -0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.55 (95% CI [26.05, 29.06], t(241) = 35.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.81, 3.44], t(241) = 1.21, p = 0.224; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.45, 95% CI [-0.17, 3.06], t(241) = 1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-3.32, 1.40], t(241) = -0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.73 (95% CI [17.82, 19.64], t(241) = 40.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.32, 2.25], t(241) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.82], t(241) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-4.15e-03, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.41, 0.26], t(241) = -1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.44 (95% CI [13.89, 14.98], t(241) = 52.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.78], t(241) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 4.61e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.72], t(241) = 0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.64], t(241) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.80 (95% CI [11.13, 12.47], t(241) = 34.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.60], t(241) = -0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.80], t(241) = -0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.69], t(241) = -0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.09 (95% CI [9.32, 10.86], t(241) = 25.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.98, 1.20], t(241) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.69], t(241) = -0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-2.21, 0.04], t(241) = -1.89, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.16, 10.75], t(241) = 24.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.91], t(241) = -0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.50], t(241) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.73], t(241) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.32 (95% CI [7.54, 9.10], t(241) = 20.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.27], t(241) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.84], t(241) = -0.04, p = 0.972; Std. beta = -4.14e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.26], t(241) = -1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.36 (95% CI [26.18, 30.55], t(241) = 25.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-3.03, 3.15], t(241) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 5.66e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.45, 1.57], t(241) = -0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.26, 95% CI [-5.20, 0.67], t(241) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 785.519 | 796.048 | -389.760 | 779.519 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 784.516 | 805.573 | -386.258 | 772.516 | 7.003 | 3 | 0.072 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,203.044 | 1,213.572 | -598.522 | 1,197.044 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,206.842 | 1,227.898 | -597.421 | 1,194.842 | 2.202 | 3 | 0.532 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,477.575 | 1,488.103 | -735.787 | 1,471.575 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,469.085 | 1,490.141 | -728.542 | 1,457.085 | 14.490 | 3 | 0.002 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,005.286 | 1,015.814 | -499.643 | 999.286 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,009.155 | 1,030.212 | -498.578 | 997.155 | 2.130 | 3 | 0.546 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,241.717 | 1,252.246 | -617.859 | 1,235.717 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,242.040 | 1,263.097 | -615.020 | 1,230.040 | 5.677 | 3 | 0.128 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,192.841 | 1,203.370 | -593.421 | 1,186.841 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,190.976 | 1,212.032 | -589.488 | 1,178.976 | 7.866 | 3 | 0.049 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,112.276 | 1,122.804 | -553.138 | 1,106.276 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,108.871 | 1,129.928 | -548.436 | 1,096.871 | 9.404 | 3 | 0.024 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,717.133 | 1,727.661 | -855.566 | 1,711.133 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,717.700 | 1,738.757 | -852.850 | 1,705.700 | 5.432 | 3 | 0.143 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,420.968 | 1,431.497 | -707.484 | 1,414.968 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,426.398 | 1,447.455 | -707.199 | 1,414.398 | 0.570 | 3 | 0.903 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,525.600 | 1,536.128 | -759.800 | 1,519.600 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,529.813 | 1,550.870 | -758.907 | 1,517.813 | 1.787 | 3 | 0.618 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,618.111 | 1,628.639 | -806.056 | 1,612.111 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,616.867 | 1,637.923 | -802.433 | 1,604.867 | 7.244 | 3 | 0.065 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,289.631 | 1,300.159 | -641.815 | 1,283.631 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,293.210 | 1,314.266 | -640.605 | 1,281.210 | 2.421 | 3 | 0.490 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,522.000 | 1,532.528 | -758.000 | 1,516.000 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,525.222 | 1,546.278 | -756.611 | 1,513.222 | 2.778 | 3 | 0.427 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,584.836 | 1,595.364 | -789.418 | 1,578.836 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,587.394 | 1,608.450 | -787.697 | 1,575.394 | 3.442 | 3 | 0.328 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,426.704 | 1,437.232 | -710.352 | 1,420.704 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,416.950 | 1,438.006 | -702.475 | 1,404.950 | 15.754 | 3 | 0.001 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,185.665 | 1,196.194 | -589.833 | 1,179.665 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,184.143 | 1,205.199 | -586.071 | 1,172.143 | 7.523 | 3 | 0.057 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,229.943 | 1,240.471 | -611.972 | 1,223.943 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,231.330 | 1,252.386 | -609.665 | 1,219.330 | 4.613 | 3 | 0.202 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,229.911 | 1,240.439 | -611.956 | 1,223.911 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,228.478 | 1,249.534 | -608.239 | 1,216.478 | 7.433 | 3 | 0.059 |
els | null | 3 | 1,517.865 | 1,528.393 | -755.932 | 1,511.865 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,516.612 | 1,537.668 | -752.306 | 1,504.612 | 7.253 | 3 | 0.064 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,747.834 | 1,758.362 | -870.917 | 1,741.834 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,745.602 | 1,766.659 | -866.801 | 1,733.602 | 8.232 | 3 | 0.041 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,446.293 | 1,456.822 | -720.147 | 1,440.293 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,446.714 | 1,467.771 | -717.357 | 1,434.714 | 5.579 | 3 | 0.134 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,343.322 | 1,353.850 | -668.661 | 1,337.322 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,343.376 | 1,364.432 | -665.688 | 1,331.376 | 5.946 | 3 | 0.114 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,713.417 | 1,723.945 | -853.708 | 1,707.417 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,713.460 | 1,734.517 | -850.730 | 1,701.460 | 5.956 | 3 | 0.114 |
esteem | null | 3 | 895.695 | 906.223 | -444.848 | 889.695 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 901.451 | 922.507 | -444.726 | 889.451 | 0.244 | 3 | 0.970 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,294.262 | 1,304.790 | -644.131 | 1,288.262 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,296.124 | 1,317.180 | -642.062 | 1,284.124 | 4.139 | 3 | 0.247 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,374.045 | 1,384.573 | -684.023 | 1,368.045 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,376.375 | 1,397.431 | -682.187 | 1,364.375 | 3.670 | 3 | 0.299 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,622.284 | 1,632.813 | -808.142 | 1,616.284 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,623.860 | 1,644.917 | -805.930 | 1,611.860 | 4.424 | 3 | 0.219 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,366.131 | 1,376.659 | -680.065 | 1,360.131 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,367.106 | 1,388.162 | -677.553 | 1,355.106 | 5.025 | 3 | 0.170 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,138.401 | 1,148.929 | -566.200 | 1,132.401 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,140.737 | 1,161.794 | -564.369 | 1,128.737 | 3.664 | 3 | 0.300 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,243.500 | 1,254.028 | -618.750 | 1,237.500 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,246.604 | 1,267.661 | -617.302 | 1,234.604 | 2.895 | 3 | 0.408 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,285.567 | 1,296.095 | -639.784 | 1,279.567 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,283.653 | 1,304.709 | -635.826 | 1,271.653 | 7.914 | 3 | 0.048 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,294.711 | 1,305.239 | -644.355 | 1,288.711 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,297.167 | 1,318.224 | -642.584 | 1,285.167 | 3.544 | 3 | 0.315 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,301.030 | 1,311.558 | -647.515 | 1,295.030 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,302.340 | 1,323.397 | -645.170 | 1,290.340 | 4.689 | 3 | 0.196 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,787.408 | 1,797.937 | -890.704 | 1,781.408 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,786.968 | 1,808.025 | -887.484 | 1,774.968 | 6.440 | 3 | 0.092 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 85 | 3.15 ± 1.19 | 85 | 3.07 ± 1.19 | 0.651 | 0.085 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 41 | 3.32 ± 1.16 | -0.172 | 36 | 3.59 ± 1.16 | -0.534 | 0.310 | -0.277 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 85 | 17.94 ± 2.86 | 85 | 17.84 ± 2.86 | 0.809 | 0.052 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 41 | 17.71 ± 2.69 | 0.112 | 36 | 18.43 ± 2.67 | -0.293 | 0.240 | -0.353 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 85 | 29.34 ± 5.24 | 85 | 30.28 ± 5.24 | 0.243 | -0.344 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 41 | 30.63 ± 4.47 | -0.471 | 36 | 32.07 ± 4.38 | -0.653 | 0.155 | -0.526 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 85 | 11.72 ± 2.02 | 85 | 11.87 ± 2.02 | 0.623 | -0.134 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 41 | 11.58 ± 1.77 | 0.121 | 36 | 12.14 ± 1.74 | -0.232 | 0.165 | -0.487 |
ras_goal | 1st | 85 | 17.13 ± 3.17 | 85 | 17.69 ± 3.17 | 0.247 | -0.287 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 41 | 17.43 ± 2.85 | -0.155 | 36 | 18.45 ± 2.81 | -0.387 | 0.116 | -0.519 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 85 | 13.08 ± 2.91 | 85 | 13.54 ± 2.91 | 0.305 | -0.274 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 41 | 13.49 ± 2.56 | -0.246 | 36 | 14.38 ± 2.51 | -0.501 | 0.127 | -0.529 |
ras_domination | 1st | 85 | 9.94 ± 2.38 | 85 | 9.62 ± 2.38 | 0.386 | 0.201 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 41 | 9.84 ± 2.19 | 0.065 | 36 | 10.71 ± 2.17 | -0.686 | 0.082 | -0.550 |
symptom | 1st | 85 | 29.96 ± 9.04 | 85 | 29.65 ± 9.04 | 0.819 | 0.079 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 41 | 28.73 ± 7.40 | 0.307 | 36 | 27.95 ± 7.19 | 0.422 | 0.640 | 0.193 |
slof_work | 1st | 85 | 22.60 ± 4.78 | 85 | 22.19 ± 4.78 | 0.575 | 0.161 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 41 | 22.48 ± 4.10 | 0.047 | 36 | 22.52 ± 4.02 | -0.130 | 0.968 | -0.015 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 85 | 24.93 ± 5.86 | 85 | 25.72 ± 5.86 | 0.381 | -0.247 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 41 | 24.49 ± 5.06 | 0.138 | 36 | 25.96 ± 4.97 | -0.075 | 0.200 | -0.460 |
satisfaction | 1st | 85 | 19.64 ± 7.15 | 85 | 21.32 ± 7.15 | 0.126 | -0.470 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 41 | 20.45 ± 6.03 | -0.226 | 36 | 22.77 ± 5.89 | -0.407 | 0.088 | -0.651 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 85 | 10.54 ± 3.72 | 85 | 11.12 ± 3.72 | 0.314 | -0.313 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 41 | 11.02 ± 3.13 | -0.261 | 36 | 11.27 ± 3.06 | -0.080 | 0.731 | -0.132 |
mhc_social | 1st | 85 | 14.84 ± 5.77 | 85 | 15.27 ± 5.77 | 0.623 | -0.135 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 41 | 15.67 ± 5.02 | -0.260 | 36 | 16.01 ± 4.93 | -0.230 | 0.768 | -0.104 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 85 | 21.55 ± 6.56 | 85 | 22.01 ± 6.56 | 0.649 | -0.126 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 41 | 22.67 ± 5.69 | -0.308 | 36 | 22.89 ± 5.59 | -0.242 | 0.865 | -0.060 |
resilisnce | 1st | 85 | 15.79 ± 4.58 | 85 | 17.00 ± 4.58 | 0.086 | -0.453 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 41 | 16.58 ± 4.04 | -0.295 | 36 | 18.85 ± 3.98 | -0.693 | 0.014 | -0.851 |
social_provision | 1st | 85 | 13.11 ± 2.85 | 85 | 13.89 ± 2.85 | 0.073 | -0.467 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 41 | 12.66 ± 2.53 | 0.267 | 36 | 14.17 ± 2.49 | -0.163 | 0.009 | -0.897 |
els_value_living | 1st | 85 | 16.64 ± 3.19 | 85 | 17.31 ± 3.19 | 0.172 | -0.381 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 41 | 16.95 ± 2.77 | -0.177 | 36 | 17.81 ± 2.72 | -0.289 | 0.167 | -0.493 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 85 | 12.26 ± 3.28 | 85 | 13.28 ± 3.28 | 0.043 | -0.641 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 41 | 12.78 ± 2.75 | -0.327 | 36 | 13.66 ± 2.68 | -0.237 | 0.156 | -0.551 |
els | 1st | 85 | 28.89 ± 5.95 | 85 | 30.59 ± 5.95 | 0.065 | -0.613 | ||
els | 2nd | 41 | 29.75 ± 4.92 | -0.310 | 36 | 31.40 ± 4.79 | -0.295 | 0.138 | -0.597 |
social_connect | 1st | 85 | 26.94 ± 9.38 | 85 | 26.13 ± 9.38 | 0.573 | 0.181 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 41 | 26.77 ± 7.82 | 0.039 | 36 | 23.37 ± 7.62 | 0.614 | 0.055 | 0.756 |
shs_agency | 1st | 85 | 13.74 ± 5.07 | 85 | 14.93 ± 5.07 | 0.128 | -0.470 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 41 | 14.15 ± 4.27 | -0.161 | 36 | 15.77 ± 4.17 | -0.331 | 0.094 | -0.640 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 85 | 15.40 ± 4.09 | 85 | 16.55 ± 4.09 | 0.067 | -0.552 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 41 | 16.13 ± 3.47 | -0.348 | 36 | 16.84 ± 3.39 | -0.137 | 0.363 | -0.342 |
shs | 1st | 85 | 29.14 ± 8.74 | 85 | 31.48 ± 8.74 | 0.082 | -0.547 | ||
shs | 2nd | 41 | 30.27 ± 7.33 | -0.263 | 36 | 32.59 ± 7.15 | -0.258 | 0.162 | -0.541 |
esteem | 1st | 85 | 12.61 ± 1.49 | 85 | 12.62 ± 1.49 | 0.959 | -0.009 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 41 | 12.55 ± 1.48 | 0.046 | 36 | 12.72 ± 1.48 | -0.072 | 0.627 | -0.126 |
mlq_search | 1st | 85 | 14.45 ± 3.55 | 85 | 15.24 ± 3.55 | 0.149 | -0.365 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 41 | 15.22 ± 3.17 | -0.358 | 36 | 15.15 ± 3.13 | 0.040 | 0.920 | 0.033 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 85 | 13.11 ± 4.31 | 85 | 13.64 ± 4.31 | 0.424 | -0.228 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 41 | 13.79 ± 3.71 | -0.297 | 36 | 14.19 ± 3.64 | -0.239 | 0.639 | -0.170 |
mlq | 1st | 85 | 27.55 ± 7.07 | 85 | 28.87 ± 7.07 | 0.226 | -0.339 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 41 | 29.00 ± 6.13 | -0.372 | 36 | 29.35 ± 6.01 | -0.124 | 0.798 | -0.091 |
empower | 1st | 85 | 18.73 ± 4.28 | 85 | 19.69 ± 4.28 | 0.144 | -0.440 | ||
empower | 2nd | 41 | 19.63 ± 3.64 | -0.410 | 36 | 19.52 ± 3.56 | 0.080 | 0.893 | 0.050 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 85 | 14.44 ± 2.55 | 85 | 14.45 ± 2.55 | 0.976 | -0.007 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 41 | 14.48 ± 2.33 | -0.024 | 36 | 15.13 ± 2.31 | -0.409 | 0.216 | -0.392 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 85 | 11.80 ± 3.14 | 85 | 11.46 ± 3.14 | 0.479 | 0.161 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 41 | 11.74 ± 2.90 | 0.030 | 36 | 10.83 ± 2.87 | 0.298 | 0.169 | 0.430 |
sss_affective | 1st | 85 | 10.09 ± 3.62 | 85 | 10.20 ± 3.62 | 0.849 | -0.057 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 41 | 10.01 ± 3.07 | 0.044 | 36 | 9.03 ± 3.00 | 0.634 | 0.158 | 0.532 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 85 | 9.95 ± 3.74 | 85 | 9.74 ± 3.74 | 0.713 | 0.113 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 41 | 9.67 ± 3.16 | 0.153 | 36 | 9.04 ± 3.08 | 0.374 | 0.381 | 0.334 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 85 | 8.32 ± 3.67 | 85 | 8.48 ± 3.67 | 0.770 | -0.080 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 41 | 8.30 ± 3.20 | 0.007 | 36 | 7.49 ± 3.14 | 0.484 | 0.261 | 0.397 |
sss | 1st | 85 | 28.36 ± 10.29 | 85 | 28.42 ± 10.29 | 0.970 | -0.012 | ||
sss | 2nd | 41 | 27.92 ± 8.51 | 0.093 | 36 | 25.72 ± 8.28 | 0.566 | 0.251 | 0.461 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(228.07) = -0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.28)
2st
t(235.77) = 1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.79)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(213.98) = -0.24, p = 0.809, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.76)
2st
t(233.19) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.93)
ras_confidence
1st
t(191.13) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.53)
2st
t(240.85) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.43)
ras_willingness
1st
t(195.55) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.76)
2st
t(238.43) = 1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.35)
ras_goal
1st
t(201.82) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.52)
2st
t(235.49) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.29)
ras_reliance
1st
t(196.56) = 1.03, p = 0.305, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.34)
2st
t(237.90) = 1.53, p = 0.127, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.03)
ras_domination
1st
t(207.26) = -0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.40)
2st
t(233.87) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.85)
symptom
1st
t(184.38) = -0.23, p = 0.819, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-3.05 to 2.42)
2st
t(242.98) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-4.06 to 2.50)
slof_work
1st
t(192.23) = -0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.03)
2st
t(240.26) = 0.04, p = 0.968, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.86)
slof_relationship
1st
t(193.42) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.56)
2st
t(239.60) = 1.28, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.79 to 3.73)
satisfaction
1st
t(189.06) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.48 to 3.84)
2st
t(241.88) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.35 to 5.01)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(188.57) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.70)
2st
t(242.09) = 0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.63)
mhc_social
1st
t(194.84) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.18)
2st
t(238.81) = 0.30, p = 0.768, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.90 to 2.57)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(194.28) = 0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.44)
2st
t(239.12) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.32 to 2.76)
resilisnce
1st
t(197.53) = 1.72, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.60)
2st
t(237.40) = 2.48, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (0.47 to 4.08)
social_provision
1st
t(198.44) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.65)
2st
t(236.95) = 2.64, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.39 to 2.64)
els_value_living
1st
t(194.07) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.64)
2st
t(239.24) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.10)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(187.84) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.03 to 2.02)
2st
t(242.38) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.10)
els
1st
t(185.86) = 1.86, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.50)
2st
t(242.92) = 1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.83)
social_connect
1st
t(187.14) = -0.56, p = 0.573, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.65 to 2.03)
2st
t(242.62) = -1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-6.87 to 0.07)
shs_agency
1st
t(188.86) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.72)
2st
t(241.97) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.52)
shs_pathway
1st
t(190.01) = 1.84, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.08 to 2.39)
2st
t(241.43) = 0.91, p = 0.363, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.25)
shs
1st
t(188.09) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.30 to 4.99)
2st
t(242.29) = 1.40, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.94 to 5.57)
esteem
1st
t(234.76) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.46)
2st
t(238.53) = 0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.83)
mlq_search
1st
t(200.43) = 1.45, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.86)
2st
t(236.05) = -0.10, p = 0.920, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.35)
mlq_presence
1st
t(192.65) = 0.80, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.83)
2st
t(240.03) = 0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.05)
mlq
1st
t(193.93) = 1.21, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.82 to 3.46)
2st
t(239.32) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.38 to 3.08)
empower
1st
t(190.11) = 1.47, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.26)
2st
t(241.38) = -0.13, p = 0.893, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.51)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(206.60) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.78)
2st
t(234.02) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.70)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(208.55) = -0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.61)
2st
t(233.63) = -1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.39)
sss_affective
1st
t(189.82) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.20)
2st
t(241.52) = -1.42, p = 0.158, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.35 to 0.38)
sss_behavior
1st
t(189.06) = -0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.92)
2st
t(241.88) = -0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.78)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(194.91) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.28)
2st
t(238.78) = -1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.24 to 0.61)
sss
1st
t(185.86) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-3.06 to 3.17)
2st
t(242.92) = -1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.98 to 1.57)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(120.34) = 2.51, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.11 to 0.93)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(106.35) = 1.34, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.48)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(89.24) = 2.88, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.55 to 3.02)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(92.24) = 1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.78)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(96.71) = 1.73, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.63)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(92.94) = 2.23, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.59)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(100.83) = 3.10, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.78)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(84.86) = -1.84, p = 0.139, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.54 to 0.14)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(89.98) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.48)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(90.79) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.67)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(87.88) = 1.79, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.07)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(87.56) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.98)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(91.76) = 1.02, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.18)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(91.37) = 1.07, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.51)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(93.62) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.66 to 3.05)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(94.27) = 0.73, p = 0.939, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.03)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(91.22) = 1.28, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.30)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(87.08) = 1.04, p = 0.601, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.10)
els
1st vs 2st
t(85.81) = 1.29, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.07)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(86.63) = -2.69, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-4.80 to -0.72)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(87.75) = 1.45, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.98)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(88.50) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.23)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(87.24) = 1.13, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.04)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(129.32) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.63)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(95.69) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.87)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(90.26) = 1.05, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.59)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(91.13) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.23)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(88.57) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.81)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(100.33) = 1.85, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.42)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(101.85) = -1.35, p = 0.361, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.30)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(88.38) = -2.79, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.00 to -0.34)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(87.88) = -1.64, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.15)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(91.80) = -2.15, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.92 to -0.07)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(85.81) = -2.48, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-4.88 to -0.53)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(114.61) = 0.85, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.55)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(102.55) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.61)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(87.64) = 2.21, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.45)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(90.28) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.34)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(94.18) = 0.74, p = 0.925, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.13)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(90.89) = 1.16, p = 0.496, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.12)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(97.77) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.55)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(83.78) = -1.42, p = 0.316, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.97 to 0.49)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(88.29) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.96)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(89.00) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.91)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(86.44) = 1.06, p = 0.586, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.33)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(86.16) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.27)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(89.85) = 1.23, p = 0.446, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.20)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(89.51) = 1.45, p = 0.300, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.65)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(91.48) = 1.40, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.91)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(92.05) = -1.26, p = 0.419, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.26)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(89.38) = 0.83, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.06)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(85.74) = 1.53, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.20)
els
1st vs 2st
t(84.62) = 1.44, p = 0.305, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.04)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(85.34) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.09 to 1.74)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(86.33) = 0.75, p = 0.909, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.48)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(86.99) = 1.63, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.61)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(85.88) = 1.23, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.95)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(122.34) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.45)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(93.29) = 1.70, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.68)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(88.54) = 1.40, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.67)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(89.30) = 1.75, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.20 to 3.09)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(87.05) = 1.92, p = 0.117, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.83)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(97.32) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.73)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(98.65) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.81)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(86.88) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.70)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(86.44) = -0.72, p = 0.953, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.51)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(89.89) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.85)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(84.62) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.49 to 1.60)
Plot
